Williams v. State

939 So. 2d 261, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 17411, 2006 WL 2955884
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 18, 2006·No. No. 1D06-3309·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the trial court’s order summarily denying as untimely his postconviction motions filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Mandate issued and the appellant’s conviction and sentence became final on March 9, 2004. The appellant’s time to file a rule 3.850 motion expired two years later on March 9, 2006. See Gust v. State, 535 So.2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Thus, the appellant’s first rule 3.850 motion filed on March 8, 2006, is timely. However, his second rule 3.850 motion filed on March 20, 2006, is untimely. We, therefore, affirm the denial of the March 20, 2006, motion, but reverse and remand for the trial court to address the merits of the appellant’s claims raised in his rule 3.850 motion filed on March 8, 2006.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

BROWNING, C.J., DAVIS, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Williams v. State, 939 So. 2d 261, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 17411, 2006 WL 2955884 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

939 So. 2d 261 (Williams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gore v. State
939 So. 2d 261 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)